2004 (1) TMI 612 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in submitting required declaration for Modvat credit disallowance.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of delay in submitting the required declaration for Modvat credit disallowance. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the case records, found that the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appellant's request for condonation of the delay without granting them a personal hearing. The Tribunal noted that the delays were minimal, only a matter of a few days, and the appellants had not utilized the credit before filing the declaration. It was observed that the lower authorities did not follow the principles of natural justice by not providing a hearing to the appellants before rejecting their request. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, condoned the delay in filing the declarations, and allowed the appeal. The direction was given to allow Modvat credit on the goods if the appellants were otherwise eligible for it.

In detail, the appellant's representative, Shri Vishwanathan, argued that Modvat credit amounting to specific sums had been disallowed to the appellants due to a delay in submitting the required declaration for capital goods. The goods in question were received on different dates, and the declarations were filed a few days later. Despite the delay, the Modvat credit was taken only after filing the declarations. The Assistant Commissioner had rejected the request for condonation of the delay in submitting the declaration, which was communicated to the appellants. Subsequently, appeals were filed by the appellants, but due to a delay caused by the courier, the appeals reached the Commissioner's office later than expected. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal based on the delay in filing it.

Upon reviewing the case, the Appellate Tribunal found that the delays in filing the declaration and the appeal were minor and that the appellants had not utilized the credit prematurely. The Tribunal criticized the lower authorities for not granting a personal hearing to the appellants before rejecting their requests for condonation of the delays. It was emphasized that the principles of natural justice were not followed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned orders could not be upheld, set them aside, and decided to condone the delay in filing the declarations. The appeal was allowed with the direction to grant Modvat credit on the goods if the appellants were eligible for it.